skip to main content
research-article

“It Must Include Rules”: Middle School Students’ Computational Thinking with Computer Models in Science

Published:28 April 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

When middle school students encounter computer models of science phenomenon in science class, how do they think those computer models work? Computer models operationalize real-world behaviors of selected variables, and can simulate interactions between the modeled elements through programmed instructions. This study explores how middle school students think about the high-level semantic meaning of those instructions, which we term rules. To investigate this aspect of students’ computational thinking, we developed the Computational Modeling Inventory and administered it to 253 7th grade students. The Inventory included three computer models that students interacted with during the assessment. In our sample, 99% of students identified at least one key rule underlying a model, but only 14% identified all key rules; 65% believed that model rules can contradict; and 98% could not distinguish between emergent patterns and behaviors that directly resulted from model rules. Despite these misconceptions, compared to the “typical” questions about the science content alone, questions about model rules elicited deeper science thinking, with 2--10 times more responses including reasoning about scientific mechanisms. These results suggest that incorporating computational thinking instruction into middle school science courses might yield deeper learning and more precise assessments around scientific models.

References

  1. 2018. PhET Interactive Simulations. Retrieved from https://phet.colorado.edu/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Tanya N. Beran, Alejandro Ramirez-Serrano, Roman Kuzyk, Meghann Fior, and Sarah Nugent. 2011. Understanding how children understand robots: Perceived animism in child-robot interaction. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 69, 7-8 (2011), 539--550. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.04.003Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Elizabeth L. Bjork and Robert Bjork. 2009. Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning. In Psychology and the Real World: Essays Illustrating Fundamental Contributions to Society. Morton Ann Gernsbacher, Richart W. Pew, Leatta M. Hough, and James R. Pomerantz (Eds.). Worth Publishers, New York, NY, 55--64.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Hsin-yi Chang and Marcia C. Linn. 2013. Scaffolding learning from molecular visualizations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 50, 7 (2013), 858--886. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21089Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. The Concord Consortium. 2013. Molecular Workbench. Retrieved from http://mw.concord.org/modeler/showcase/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Alan Cooper. 1996. Three models of computer software. Technical Communication 43, 3 (1996), 229--236.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Maria Cutumisu, Cathy Adams, and Chang Lu. 2019. A scoping review of empirical research on recent computational thinking assessments. Journal of Science Education and Technology 28, 6 (2019), 651--676. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09799-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Janet Davis and Samuel A. Rebelsky. 2007. Food-first computer science: Starting the first course right with PB&J. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 372--376. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1227310.1227440Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Andrea A. DiSessa and Bruce L. Sherin. 2000. Meta-representation: An introduction. Journal of Mathematical Behavior 19 (2000), 385--398.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Benedict Du Boulay. 1986. Some difficulties of learning to program. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2, 1 (1986), 57--73.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Ilenia Fronza, Nabil El Ioini, and Luis Corral. 2017. Teaching computational thinking using agile software engineering methods. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 17, 4 (2017), 1--28. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3055258Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. David J. Gilmore. 1995. Interface design: Have we got it wrong? In Proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction. Knut Nordby, Per Helmerson, David J. Gilmore, and Svein A. Arnesan (Eds.). Springer US, Boston, MA, 173--178. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-5041-2896-4_29Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Janice D. Gobert and Amy Pallant. 2004. Fostering students’ epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13, 1 (2004), 7--22. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019635.70068.6fGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Ashok K. Goel and David A. Joyner. 2014. Computational ideation in scientific discovery: Interactive construction, evaluation and revision of conceptual models. In Proceedings of the Workshops at the 28th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 27--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. David Golightly. 1996. Harnessing the interface for domain learning. In Proceedings of the Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’96). ACM, 37--38. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/257089.257121Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Shuchi Grover and Roy Pea. 2013. Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher 42, 38 (2013), 38--43. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. F. Heider and M. Simmel. 1944. An experimental study of social behavior. The American Journal of Psychology 57, 2 (1944), 243--259.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Benjamin Herold. 2016. Technology in Education: An Overview. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/technology-in-education/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Daiki Isayama, Masaki Ishiyama, Raissa Relator, and Koichi Yamazaki. 2016. Computer science education for primary and lower secondary school students. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 17, 1 (2016), 1--28. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2940331Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. David Klahr and Sharon Carver. 1988. Cognitive objectives in a LOGO debugging curriculum: Instruction, learning, and transfer. Cognitive Psychology 20, 3 (1988), 362--404.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Joseph Krajcik and Joi Merritt. 2012. Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom?Science and Children 49, 7 (2012), 10--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Marcia C. Linn and Bat-Sheva Eylon. 2011. Science Learning and Instruction: Taking Advantage of Technology to Promote Knowledge Integration. Routledge. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=IWmpAgAAQBAJGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Marcia C. Linn, H. S. Lee, R. Tinker, F. Husic, and J. L. Chiu. 2006. Teaching and assessing knowledge integration in science. Science 313, 5790 (2006), 1049--1050. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131408Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Ou Lydia Liu, Hee Sun Lee, Carolyn Hofstetter, and Marcia C. Linn. 2008. Assessing knowledge integration in science: Construct, measures, and evidence. Educational Assessment 13, 1 (2008), 33--55. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10627190801968224Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Yanjin Long and Vincent Aleven. 2017. Educational game and intelligent tutoring system: A classroom study and comparative design analysis. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 24, 3 (2017), 1--27. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3057889Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Loucas T. Louca and Zacharias C. Zacharia. 2012. Modeling-based learning in science education: Cognitive, metacognitive, social, material and epistemological contributions. Educational Review 54, 4 (2012), 471--492. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.628748Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Betti Marenko. 2014. Neo-animism and design. Design and Culture 6, 2 (2014), 219--242. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.2752/175470814x14031924627185Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Santosh Mathan and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2005. Fostering the intelligent novice: Learning from errors with metacognitive tutoring. Educational Psychologist 40, 4 (Dec. 2005), 257--265. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4004_7Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Kevin W. McElhaney, Hsin-Yi Chang, Jennifer L. Chiu, and Marcia C. Linn. 2014. Evidence for effective uses of dynamic visualisations in science curriculum materials. Studies in Science Education 51, 1 (2014), 49--85. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2014.984506Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Mitchell J. Nathan. 1998. Knowledge and situational feedback in a learning environment for algebra story problem solving. Interactive Learning Environments 5, 1 (1998), 135--159.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Mitchell J. Nathan, Martha W. Alibali, Kate Masarik, Ana C. Stephens, and Kenneth R. Koedinger. 2010. Enhancing middle school students’ representational fluency: A classroom-based study. WCER Working Paper No. 2010-9. Retrieved from https://wcer.wisc.edu/docs/working-papers/Working_Paper_No_2010_09.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, by States. Technical Report. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.17226/18290Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Donald A. Norman. 1990. The Design of Everyday Things. The MIT Press, London, England.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Amy Pallant and Hee Sun Lee. 2015. Constructing scientific arguments using evidence from dynamic computational climate models. Journal of Science Education and Technology 24, 2-3 (2015), 378--395. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9499-3Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Roy D. Pea. 1986. Language-independent conceptual “bugs” in novice programming. Journal of Educational Computing Research 2, 1 (1986), 25--36.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Edys S. Quellmalz, Michael J. Timms, Matt D. Silberglitt, and Barbara C. Buckley. 2012. Science assessments for all: Integrating science simulations into balanced state science assessment systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49, 3 (2012), 363--393. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21005Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Noel Rappin, Mark Guzdial, Matthew Realff, and Pete Ludovice. 1997. Balancing usability and learning in an interface. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’97). 479--486. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/258549.258995Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Alexander Repenning, David C. Webb, Kyu Han Koh, Hilarie Nickerson, Susan B. Miller, Catharine Brand, Ian Her Many Horses, Ashok Basawapatna, Fred Gluck, Ryan Grover, Kris Gutiérrez, and Nadia Repenning. 2015. Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systemic computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 15, 2 (2015), 1--31. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2700517Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Jeremy Roschelle. 1995. Learning in interactive environments: Prior knowledge and new experience. In Public Institutions for Personal Learning: Establishing a Research Agenda. J. H Falk and L. D Dierking (Eds.). American Association of Museums, Washington, DC, 37--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Marco Rozendaal. 2016. Objects with intent: A new paradigm for interaction design. Interactions 23, 3 (2016), 62--65.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Rosemary S. Russ, Janet E. Coffey, David Hammer, and Paul Hutchison. 2009. Making classroom assessment more accountable to scientific reasoning: A case for attending to mechanistic thinking. Science Education 93, 5 (2009), 875--891. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20320Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  42. Kihyun Ryoo and Marcia C. Linn. 2012. Can dynamic visualizations improve middle school students’ understanding of energy in photosynthesis?Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49, 2 (2012), 218--243. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21003Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Brian J. Scholl and Patrice D. Tremoulet. 2000. Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 8 (2000), 299--309. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01506-0Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Christina V. Schwarz, Brian J. Reiser, Elizabeth A. Davis, Lisa Kenyon, Andres Acher, David Fortus, Yael Shwartz, Barbara Hug, and Joe Krajcik. 2009. Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 46, 6 (2009), 632--654. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Christina V. Schwarz and Barbara Y. White. 2005. Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction 23, 2 (2005), 165--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Pratim Sengupta and Amy Voss Farris. 2012. Learning kinematics in elementary grades using agent-based computational modeling. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC ’12). 78--87. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2307096.2307106Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Pratim Sengupta, John S. Kinnebrew, Satabdi Basu, Gautam Biswas, and Douglas Clark. 2013. Integrating computational thinking with K-12 science education using agent-based computation: A theoretical framework. Education and Information Technologies 18, 2 (2013), 351--380. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9240-xGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  48. Pratim Sengupta, Amy Voss Farris, and Mason Wright. 2013. From agents to continuous change via aesthetics: Learning mechanics with visual agent-based computational modeling. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 17, 1-2 (2013), 23--42. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-012-9190-9Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Juha Sorva. 2013. Notional machines and introductory programming education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 13, 2 (2013). DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/2483710.2483713Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. John Sweller. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and Instruction 4, 4 (1994), 295--312. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Kurt VanLehn, Greg Chung, Sachin Grover, Ayesha Madni, and Jon Wetzel. 2016. Learning science by constructing models: Can dragoon increase learning without increasing the time required?International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 26, 4 (2016), 1033--1068. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-015-0093-5Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Jonathan M. Vitale, Elizabeth Mcbride, and Marcia C. Linn. 2016. Distinguishing complex ideas about climate change: knowledge integration vs. specific guidance. International Journal of Science Education 38, 9 (2016), 1548--1569. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2016.1198969Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Kevin P. Waterman, Lynn Goldsmith, and Marian Pasquale. 2020. Integrating computational thinking into elementary science curriculum: An examination of activities that support students’ computational thinking in the service of disciplinary learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology 29, 1 (2020), 53--64. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09801-yGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. David Weintrop, Elham Beheshti, Michael Horn, Kai Orton, Kemi Jona, Laura Trouille, and Uri Wilensky. 2016. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology 25, 1 (2016), 127--147. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Mark Weiser. 1991. The computer for the 21st century. Scientific American 265, 3 (1991), 94--105. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/24938718Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Astrid Weiss, Daniela Wurhofer, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2009. “I love this dog” - Children’s emotional attachment to the robotic dog AIBO. International Journal of Social Robotics 1, 3 (2009), 243--248. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-009-0024-4Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Eliane Stampfer Wiese, Hannah Gogel, Libby F. Gerard, Jonathan M. Vitale, and Marcia C. Linn. 2017. Probing Middle-School Students’ Understanding of Computer Models. Presented at the 2017 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Uri Wilensky and Kenneth Reisman. 2006. Thinking like a wolf, a sheep, or a firefly: Learning biology through constructing and testing computational theories -- an embodied modeling approach. Cognition and Instruction 24, 2 (2006), 171--209. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2402_1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Michelle H. Wilkerson-Jerde, Brian E. Gravel, and Christopher A. Macrander. 2015. Exploring shifts in middle school learners’ modeling activity while generating drawings, animations, and computational simulations of molecular diffusion. Journal of Science Education and Technology 24, 2-3 (2015), 396--415. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9497-5Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  60. Jeannette M. Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33--35. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Eben B. Witherspoon, Ross M. Higashi, Christian D. Schunn, Emily C. Baehr, and Robin Shoop. 2017. Developing computational thinking through a virtual robotics programming curriculum. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 18, 1 (2017), 1--20. DOI: DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3104982Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. “It Must Include Rules”: Middle School Students’ Computational Thinking with Computer Models in Science

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        • Published in

          cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction
          ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction  Volume 28, Issue 2
          April 2021
          264 pages
          ISSN:1073-0516
          EISSN:1557-7325
          DOI:10.1145/3461620
          Issue’s Table of Contents

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 28 April 2021
          • Revised: 1 May 2020
          • Received: 1 August 2018
          • Accepted: 1 August 2009
          Published in tochi Volume 28, Issue 2

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article
          • Research
          • Refereed

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format